[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41118-41125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16293]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2013-0146]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
Background
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from June 13, 2013 to June 26, 2013. The last
biweekly notice was published on June 25, 2013 (78 FR 38078).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comment by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0146. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06A-44MP, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0146 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses
and is publicly-available, by the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0146.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. Documents may be viewed in
ADAMS by performing a search on the document date and docket number.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0146 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
[[Page 41119]]
that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing
or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
[[Page 41120]]
to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding
prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to
intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities
participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with
the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing
process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on
electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of
their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the
procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, a request to intervene will require including information on
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three
factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the
filing is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon
which the filing is based is materially different from information
previously available; and (iii) the filing has been submitted in a
[[Page 41121]]
timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 26, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise a Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirement to
verify that acceptable steady-state limits on the electrical frequency
are achieved by the two Keowee Hydro Units (KHUs), which are the
emergency power sources for the Oconee Nuclear Station.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adds a new Technical Specification
surveillance requirement to verify that the emergency power sources,
KHUs, for the Oconee Nuclear Station achieve a steady state
frequency of > 59.4 Hz and < 61.8 Hz. The proposed TS change
implements a requirement already established by Selected Licensee
Commitment (SLC) 16.8.5. The equipment used to collect steady state
frequency data has been evaluated and will not affect the operation
of the KHUs. Since the KHUs are not initiators of any accidents
previously evaluated, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously
evaluated. Since the performance of the surveillance has no effect
on KHU operation, it does not involve a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not significantly increase
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds a new TS Surveillance Requirement.
Performance of the surveillance has no effect on the operation of
the KHUs. The changes do not alter the plant configuration (no new
or different type of equipment will be installed) or make changes in
methods governing normal plant operation. No installed equipment is
being operated in a different manner. As such, the proposed change
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds a new TS Surveillance Requirement. The
change provides an additional restriction to enhance plant safety.
The change maintains requirements within the safety analyses and
licensing basis. As such, no question of safety is involved.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 25, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would amend
Combined License numbers NPF-91 and NPF-92 for Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 by departing from the plant-specific
design control document Tier 2 and Tier 2* material related to fire
area boundaries and contained within the updated final safety analysis
report (UFSAR). The proposed changes would alter the layout of the
Annex Building and Turbine Building, change Turbine Building Stairwell
S08, and clarify a UFSAR figure of the Annex Building heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning shafts.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed Annex Building and Turbine Building layout changes,
Turbine Building stairwell changes to support egress functions, and
an Annex Building ventilation shaft Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) figure clarification would not affect any safety-
related equipment or function. The modified configurations would
continue to maintain the associated fire protection (i.e., barrier)
functions. The safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected, and the
fire protection analysis results remain acceptable. The affected
rooms and equipment do not contain or interface with safety-related
equipment. The proposed changes do not involve any accident
initiating event, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously
evaluated are not affected. The affected rooms do not represent a
radioactive material barrier, and this activity does not involve the
containment of radioactive material. The radioactive material source
terms and release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged,
thus the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not
affected.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated
are not affected. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed Annex Building and Turbine Building layout changes,
Turbine Building stairwell changes to support egress functions, and
an Annex Building ventilation shaft UFSAR figure clarification would
not change the performance of the fire barriers. Fire zone loadings
and associated fire analyses remain within their acceptance limits.
The affected rooms do not contain equipment whose failure could
initiate an accident. The affected rooms and associated equipment do
not interface with components that contain radioactive material. The
fire boundary changes do not create a new fault or sequence of
events that could initiate a new kind of accident or result in a
radioactive material release.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No
The proposed Annex Building and Turbine Building layout changes,
Turbine Building stairwell changes to support egress functions, and
an Annex Building ventilation shaft
[[Page 41122]]
UFSAR figure clarification would not change the fire protection
performance of any fire barrier. No safety or fire requirement
acceptance criterion would be exceeded or challenged. The safe
shutdown fire analysis is not affected. No safety-related equipment,
area or function is involved. The amounts of combustible material
loadings in the affected fire zones remain within their applicable
limits. The proposed fire boundary changes comply with existing
design codes and regulatory criteria, and do not affect any safety
analysis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Blach & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence Burkhart.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: May 13, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments request
revision of TS 4.17, ``Shock Suppressors (Snubbers),'' and the TS 4.17
Bases, as well as addition of TS 6.4.T, ``Inservice Examination,
Testing, and Service Life Monitoring Program for Snubbers.'' The
proposed change will revise the TS surveillance requirements for
snubbers to be in accordance with ASME OM Code, Subsection ISTD, and
will relocate the surveillance requirements to the Surry Units 1 and 2
Inservice Examination, Testing, and Service Life Monitoring Program
Plans for Snubbers.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises TS 4.17 to conform the TS to the
revised snubber program and relocates the surveillance requirements
to the Inservice Examination, Testing, and Service Life Monitoring
Program for Snubbers. Snubber examination, testing and service life
monitoring will meet the requirements of the ASME OM Code Subsection
ISTD as allowed by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(v).
Snubber examination, testing, and service life monitoring are
not initiators of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the
probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly
increased.
Snubber operability will continue to be demonstrated by
performance of a program for examination, testing, and service life
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a. Therefore, the proposed
change does not adversely affect plant operations, design functions
or analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures, and
components to perform their design functions. The consequences of
accidents previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of
plant equipment. The proposed change does not change the method by
which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no
new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic
operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing
plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety
analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change ensures snubber examination, testing, and
service life monitoring will meet the requirements of the ASME OM
Code Subsection ISTD as allowed by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(v). Snubbers
will continue to be demonstrated operable by performance of a
program for examination, testing, and service life monitoring in
compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a.
The schedule for subsequent 10-year updates to the Surry snubber
program will coincide with 10-year updates to the Surry IST program.
The need to perform the 10-year update for the Surry snubber program
is required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
[[Page 41123]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: August 29, 2012, as
supplemented by letters dated January 31, 2013, and April 26, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments add Technical
Specification (TS) requirements for the Residual Heat Removal Drywell
Spray function.
Date of issuance: June 18, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendments Nos.: 288 and 291.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 30, 2012 (77 FR
65723).
The letters dated January 31, 2013, and April 26, 2013, provided
clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination or expand the
application beyond the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 18, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455,
Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3,York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: July 6, 2012.
Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendment would
revise TS 5.3.1/6.3.1, ``Unit (Facility) Staff Qualifications,'' to
remove operator license applicant education and experience requirements
and add the requirement that Licensed Operators shall comply with part
55 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).
Date of issuance: June 17, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 173, 180, 200, 240, 233, 206, 193, 210, 171, 281,
289, 292, 251, 246 and 280.
Facility Operating License Nos.: NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, NPF-66,
NPF-62, DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18, NPF-39, NPF-85, DPR-16, DPR-44,
DPR-56, DPR-29, DPR-30, DPR-50: The amendments revised the Technical
Specifications/Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 21, 2012.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 17, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: August 10, 2012, supplemented by
letter dated February 13, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the
technical specifications (TSs), specifically, the requirements of the
TSs related to station direct current battery surveillance requirements
for terminal connection resistances.
Date of issuance: June 18, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 215 and 165.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments
revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 30, 2012 (77 FR
65724). The supplement letter dated February 13, 2013, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 18, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: June 25, 2012, as supplemented by letter
dated March 27, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the
description of the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA) in Section XIV-6.4 of
the Cooper Nuclear Station Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). The
revised USAR FHA description is based on changes to the Design Basis
Accident FHA dose calculation, to reflect a 24-month cycle source term
using a Global Nuclear Fuels (GNF) 10 x 10 fuel array, a reduced Radial
Peaking Factor, and inclusion of a calculated shine contribution to the
total dose.
Date of issuance: June 26, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 246.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and the USAR.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 16, 2013 (78 FR
22570). The supplemental letter dated March 27, 2013, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: March 1, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revised the
Seabrook
[[Page 41124]]
Technical Specifications (TS). The amendment deletes the TS Index and
makes corrections to Seabrook TS 3.4.8, ``Reactor Coolant System
Specific Activity,'' and TS 6.8.1.6.a, ``Core Operating Limits
Report.''
Date of issuance: June 17, 2013.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 137.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the
License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 2, 2013 (78 FR
19752).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 17, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: June 6, 2012.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate the requirements that the
average power range monitoring (APRM) system ``Upscale'' and
``Inoperative'' scram and control rod withdrawal block functions be
operable in Operational Condition (OPCON) 5, refueling operations.
Date of issuance: June 26, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 194.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 19, 2013 (78 FR
16884).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna
Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of application for amendment: April 20, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The Amendment revises the TS 3.1.7
to approve the use of an alternative method, other than the current
method of the use of movable incore detectors system, to monitor the
position of control rod or shutdown rod, in the event of a malfunction
of the microprocessor rod position indication (MRPI) system. The use of
this alternative method would reduce the required frequency of flux
mapping using the movable incore detector system to determine the
position of the control or shutdown rod position that is not being
indicated. This will reduce the wear on the movable incore detector
system that is also used to complete other required TS surveillances.
Date of issuance: June 25, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
30 days.
Amendment No.: 114.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: Amendment revised
the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 16, 2013 (78 FR
22572).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil
C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 3 and 4, Fairfield County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: March 26, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorizes a
departure from the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3
plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) material incorporated into
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) by revising the
structural analysis requirements to provide alternative requirements
for development of headed reinforcement bars (T-heads) within the
nuclear island structures above the basemat elevation.
Date of issuance: June 6, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 2-3, and Unit 3-3.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 16, 2013 (78 FR
22563).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment: June 13, 2012, as supplemented
February 4, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed change will
selectively implement an Alternate Source Term (AST) methodology in
accordance with Regulatory Position 1.2.2 of Regulatory Guide (RG)
1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design
Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' by modifying the WBN, Unit
1 licensing basis for determining offsite and Control Room doses due to
a Fuel Handling Accident (FHA). A license amendment is required for AST
implementation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.67(b)(1).
Date of issuance: June 19, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
no later than 60 days from date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 92.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the
License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 14, 2012 (77
FR 56882). The supplement dated February 4, 2013, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear
Plant (WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment Request: May 22, 2013, as supplemented June 12,
2013.
Brief description of amendment request: The amendment revised the
WBN, Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow a one-time
extension to the Completion Time for TS Limiting Condition for
Operation 3.6.6 Required Action A. 1 from 72 hours to 7 days for an
inoperable Containment Spray (CS) Train B. This change is necessary to
provide sufficient time to replace a leaking mechanical seal on CS Pump
1B-B. The pump repair is currently scheduled for the week of June 24,
2013. TVA requested this proposed TS change under exigent circumstances
that the NRC expedite the review of the requested change to support
approval by June 22, 2013. The supplemental letter dated June 12, 2013,
provided additional information but did not expand the scope of the
request or change the staff's original proposed NSHC determination.
Date of issuance: June 22, 2013.
Effective date: June 24, 2013.
Amendment No.: 93.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the TSs.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. A notice
[[Page 41125]]
was published in June 3, 2013; 78 FR 33117. The notice provided an
opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC
determination. No comments have been received. The notice also provided
an opportunity to request a hearing by August 2, 2013, but indicated
that if the Commission makes a final NSHC determination, any such
hearing would take place after the issuance of the amendment.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination
are contained in a safety evaluation dated June 22, 2013.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of June 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-16293 Filed 7-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P